I'm back... and with a proof...

[rpg16]

Mensanator, lets forget what has happened before...
I think when the problem gets solved... we shall all enjoy it...

Here's my next attempt... If you don't wanna read it... fine...
But I wanted to post it...

Thanks
Roupam

Here's the link
http://www.filedropper.com/mypaper

[rpg16]

Typo error sorry...
The link will be
http://www.filedropper.com/mypaper_1

[rpg16]

Updated...
http://www.filedropper.com/nontrivial

On Jul 17, 5:54 pm, rpg16 <roupam.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Typo error sorry...

> The link will behttp://www.filedropper.com/mypaper_1

[Mensanator]

On Jul 17, 7:29 am, rpg16 <roupam.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mensanator, lets forget what has happened before...
> I think when the problem gets solved... we shall all enjoy it...

Fine, we'll forget the past.

But you should try to understand that there is no such
thing as a proof that is not verified. You cannot call it a
proof until AFTER it is verified and peer reviewed.

I am not a professional mathematician, but I expect that
you are not making friends in the math community when you
say "I have a proof, but I don't know if it's right or wrong".

It does not matter to _ME_ if you use words incorrectly, as
I am just a nobody. But if you ever _DO_ hit on something
important, I suspect you'll want to get it published and then
such matters will be important.

>
> Here's my next attempt... If you don't wanna read it...

I will always attempt to look at it (I have, in fact, already
downloaded it). And it has never been my intent to bully you.
If it looks that way, I apollogize. I know that sometimes
my writing is terse and I sometimes get frustrated if you
don't appear to be learning anything, but don't take anything
personnaly.

As far as I know, I don't think I've ever said I "prooved"
any of your papers wrong. I might be wrong, but I think you
need to address the issues I raise.

Wait, you did say once there was no such thing as a loop cycle,
so we'll moderate that.

> fine...
> But I wanted to post it...

And perhaps I'll get to it over the weekend.

[rpg16]

Thanks Mensanator for your positive comments...

Here's an updated paper...
http://www.filedropper.com/nontrivial_1

Some minor bugs were removed...

[rpg16]

Sorry above link is old...
Updated paper is here
http://www.filedropper.com/nontrivial_2

On Jul 18, 10:59 am, rpg16 <roupam.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Mensanator for your positive comments...
>

> Here's an updated paper...http://www.filedropper.com/nontrivial_1

[rpg16]

I finally found a good file hosting solution...
So I have hosted my updated paper here

http://www.4shared.com/file/118923816/8dca9220/nontrivial.html

On Jul 18, 11:02 am, rpg16 <roupam.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry above link is old...

> Updated paper is herehttp://www.filedropper.com/nontrivial_2

[rpg16]

Error.... Section 5...
Sorry for claiming yet another time that this is a "proof"

Menasanator, a few questions... Am I still spewing crap... or are my
writings are improving...
Does my paper have anything new...???

[Mensanator]

On Jul 19, 8:32 pm, rpg16 <roupam.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Error.... Section 5...
> Sorry for claiming yet another time that this is a "proof"
>
> Menasanator, a few questions... Am I still spewing crap

Until you learn what "proof" means.

> ... or are my writings are improving...

Well, you are starting to get some things right, such as

c_m
ai = -------------
2**s_m - 3**m

although I think you are missing an important point here.

> Does my paper have anything new...???

Unfortunately, yes. You now (perhaps this is the first time
I've seen it) have a paragraph of "Acknowledgements". It is a
mistake to acknowledge Craig Feinstein regardless of anything
he told you or how big a friend he is. He is a blatant crank
(Google on his name in sci.math to find out what others think
of his crackpot "proof" that Collatz is unprovable). He refuses
to acknowledge the validity of mathematical induction. I notice
you mention induction in your paper. How is Feinstein helping
you, exactly? The problem with acknowledging well-known cranks
is that you risk others throwing your paper in the trash as soon
as they see his name. If he has helped you, it would be best for
you to keep that a secret.

Also, you mention Ken Conrow's site in your References. This, too,
is unfortunate although I doubt anyone but me will call you on it.
Ken, it seems, is becoming a crank also. I say that because I had
a long e-mail correspondence with him (I corrected his faulty
state diagram). When I pointed out the fallacy of the integer
density of the Abstract Predecessor Tree, he quit talking to me
and continues to pretend there isn't a problem (classic crank
behaviour). That's too bad, I thought Ken was a nice guy. I guess
he couldn't take seeing his work destroyed by me. I would think
making a fool of yourself in public by trying to get such junk
published would be worse.

Now, I realize this isn't YOUR problem...except why haven't YOU
seen his problem? Did you not read his paper? Did you not understand
its implications? And no, it's not obvious. I didn't see it either
until I made a long, tedious research of what he was doing (at the
time, I WAS trying to help).

Oh, in case you haven't guessed, I haven't had time to go over
the details of your paper yet. I tend to look for conclusions that
don't seem right to me. A perfect example is the title of your
paper. I realize you qualify that in the body of the paper to
be referring to only positive, but why isn't that said in the title?

Taken out of context, that title is flat out wrong. The set of
non-trivial loop cycles is known to be non-empty (albeit in the
negative domain), so you look like a fool for using such a title
(to anyone who knows anything about Collatz).

My opinion is that you should not provide an excuse for people to
throw away your paper. Remember, a qualification in the body will
only help IF your paper gets read.

> > > > > > Here's the linkhttp://www.filedropper.com/mypaper- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rpg16]

I agree with many of your opinions, thanks for that...
But I disagree with some of them... also...

for example it frustrates me, when you are commenting on "the meaning
of proof", or the mistake in my title, or how
not to get my paper thrown away... these advice seems great for a
person who wants to excel academically, but wouldnt help someone with
research...

Also, though you say, you intention is not to bully people, but still
you are using invalidating comments. I dont understand does it give
you pleasure, or does it give you satisfaction to use words like
those, which are in fact not at all necessary to help someone
researching any topic. Moreover such kind of comments might help
alienate someone who doesnt understand you properly.(I was an example)

Secondly, have you noticed that although you keep ruminating about how
much I should learn, you have never cared to look inside my paper,
apparently you act as if you are all-knowing... i doubt if most
mathematicians are like you...

And thirdly, most of our conversations have been I hearing you more
and you telling me more, without caring to listen to my responses. It
seems you judge others more often than you judge yourself.

So, I do not know whether to take your words as true or not, because
your comments have never been about what I have thought in my paper,
instead, you comments are targetted at how good you are for trying to
help me out, and how bad I am, about not learning from you.

I wonder if you consider yourself a crank???

> > > > > ThanksMensanatorfor your positive comments...

>
> > > > > Here's an updated paper...http://www.filedropper.com/nontrivial_1
>
> > > > > Some minor bugs were removed...
>

> > > > > > > Here's the linkhttp://www.filedropper.com/mypaper-Hide quoted text -

[Mensanator]

On Jul 20, 2:36 am, rpg16 <roupam.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with many of your opinions, thanks for that...
> But I disagree with some of them... also...
>
> for example it frustrates me, when you are commenting on "the meaning
> of proof", or the mistake in my title, or how
> not to get my paper thrown away... these advice seems great for a
> person who wants to excel academically,

I assumed that was your ultimate goal.

> but wouldnt help someone with research...

Ok, but look at it this way: you claim you have a proof
and then state you don't know whether it's right or wrong.
How does that help me with MY research?

>
> Also, though you say, you intention is not to bully people, but still
> you are using invalidating comments.

Truth is never bullying. Now if I rub your nose in it
and call you stupid, then you have a case. But if you
say something like 1+1=3 and I correct you on it, I have
a right to expect you won't say it again. And if you do,
then, perhaps, I'll call you stupid.

You need to appreciate the difference between ignorance
and stupidity.

ignorant: someone who is simply unaware of the truth
stupid : someone who has been told the truth but
fails to embrace it

and to keep in mind that ignorant is not an insult, whereas
stupid is. Much of what you perceive as bullying is simply
my attempt to enlighten you.

> I dont understand does it give you pleasure,

Depends on what "it" refers to. If you're refering to being
enlightened, yes.

> or does it give you satisfaction to use words like those,

How do you propose responding to those who won't embrace
the truth when it's handed to them on a silver platter
with no effort required on their part?

> which are in fact not at all necessary to help someone
> researching any topic.

And what, exactly, IS research? Either you do the work yourself
or you take advantage of other's research and save yourself
lots of time and effort. Do you want a detailed account of what
Ken Conrow's actual problem is? I'll be happy to tell you rather
than simply calling him a crank. AFTER you have read all the
papers on his web site and can describe them to my staisfaction.
You can save yourself some effort by just taking my word for it.
If on the other hand, I'm wrong, why hasn't Ken responded refuting
my claim that his "proof" is a Non Sequitur Fallacy? Why is he
pretending there is no problem?

> Moreover such kind of comments might help
> alienate someone who doesnt understand you properly.(I was an example)

How many times have you been yelled at for using the
word "proof" incorrectly? How many times have you asked what
should you say? The people looking at your papers are the ones
who are getting alienated.

>
> Secondly, have you noticed that although you keep ruminating about how
> much I should learn, you have never cared to look inside my paper,

I have always looked inside. I may not understand a lot of it
because I'm not a professional mathematician, but I try to
recast much of it in terms I DO understand and if I see something
I don't like, I point it out.

> apparently you act as if you are all-knowing...

I know a lot of stuff I've learned over the years.
Am I spoiling your fun by revealing it to you?
Do you want to spend years catching up to where I am,
or would you, perhaps, like to surpass my knowledge?

> i doubt if most mathematicians are like you...

I think you are wrong there. Read sci.math. The real
mathematicians don't take kindly to newbies spouting
nonsense in an area they've spent years in.

>
> And thirdly, most of our conversations have been I hearing you more
> and you telling me more, without caring to listen to my responses.

Have you responed to my responses? Do you have an example where
I didn't respond to something you said about something I said?

> It seems you judge others more often than you judge yourself.

Why would I judge myself? Do you have a specific instance of
something I've said that is false?

>
> So, I do not know whether to take your words as true or not,

Sure you do. I can explain everything I say in simple terms because
that's how I work. I do NOT volunteer such explanations unless you
ask. You can easily work out for yourself any of my work as it is
far simpler to understand than yours is to me.

> because
> your comments have never been about what I have thought in my paper,

It's your conclusions that matter, not what you're thinking to
arrive at them.

> instead, you comments are targetted at how good you are for trying to
> help me out, and how bad I am, about not learning from you.

Let me ask you a question. How many respones have you gotten to
your post of Jul 17 announcing this latest paper? According to
Google, you've gotten exactly 2 that weren't yours. One from
me and one from Primes? (one of that jerk Musatov's sock puppets).
The world isn't beating a path to your door, eh? Why do you suppose
that is? Is it because no one is interested in Collatz? Is it
because people have seen enough of your "proofs" not to even
bother reading them anymore? I suspect that the statistics are
on my side.

>
> I wonder if you consider yourself a crank???

As far as I know, I've never said anything false. I have not
said abything I can't back up. I have never claimed to have
proven the Collatz Conjecture.

So, the answer to your question is no. I have been called that
by people who don't understand my work. There could be errors
in it, but as far as I know, there aren't.

> > > > > > > > Here's the linkhttp://www.filedropper.com/mypaper-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Mensanator]

On Jul 20, 2:36�am, rpg16 <roupam.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Secondly, have you noticed that although you keep ruminating about how
> much I should learn, you have never cared to look inside my paper,

Ok, here's a quote from inside your paper.
At the end of section 4, you state
"Hence, if we check all numbers til k(m)...".

The proof is invalid from this point on.

QED

You can never have a step that says "do all...".

You can say "for all" if you have, say,
a valid induction that justifies that
statement. For example, say you wanted to
prove the premise that all Mersenne Numbers
having an even number of bits are divisible
by 3. You can look at as many as you want,
but you'll never be able to look at all.
But it can be proved without looking at all
(by the way, do NOT listen to Feinstein on
this matter).

First you set up successor a function for
Mersenne Numbers and using that, successor
functions for each congruence class of
modulo 3:

- the successor(Mn) --> 2*Mn + 1
- the successor(0 mod 3) --> 1 mod 3
- the successor(1 mod 3) --> 0 mod 3
- the successor(2 mod 3) --> 2 mod 3

this creates a state machine of two disjoint
pathways:

---> 0 mod 3 ----> 1 mod 3 ---> 2 mod 3
| | | |
------------------------ ---------

Thus, either every Mersenne Number is 2 mod 3

OR

they alternate between 0 mod 3 and 1 mod 3.

Now, to apply the final step in the induction,
we look at the initial condition and note that
M1 (0b1) is, in fact, 1 mod 3. That's an odd
number of bits, and since even alternates in
lockstep with odd, those with an even number
of bits are 0 mod 3, the mathematical way of
expressing "divisible by 3".

Thus, for all Mn where n is even, Mn is divisible by 3.

QED

THAT's what you have to do. If at any time you
have to look at all, your proof grinds to halt
and you cannot continue. You HAVE to have some
kind of argument that doesn't involve looking at
all, such as the example above.

And do this for the other places where you make
this mistake.